Since September 1, 2026, out-of-court forced execution has, in certain cases, made it possible to collect a monetary claim in Quebec without first obtaining a judgment on the merits, provided that there is a notarial act en minute containing a clause to that effect and that the obligation in question is determined or determinable, exigible, and not excluded by law or regulation. What is out-of-court forced execution? Out-of-court forced execution is a mechanism designed to facilitate the collection of certain claims by allowing, when a notarial act exists, for the execution of certain specified monetary obligations without first having to obtain a judgment on the merits. This new mechanism, which has been in effect since September 1, 2026, promotes access to justice and helps reduce the time and costs associated with such proceedings. Out-of-court forced execution is not automatic; it must be specifically provided for in a notarial act and must relate to a clear, liquid, and exigible monetary obligation. The basis of out-of-court forced execution: Notarial acts en minute Access to this mechanism is contingent upon the inclusion, in a notarial act en minute, of a clause that complies with the requirements of the Regulation respecting the forced execution of the payment of a claim resulting from the non-performance of an obligation recorded in a notarial act, setting forth the terms and conditions for accessing out-of-court forced execution. The notary plays a crucial role, not only as a drafter but also as a public official bound by a duty to provide impartial and personalized advice, ensuring the parties’ free and informed consent. With this in mind, the automatic inclusion of a dispute resolution clause simply through the use of non-customizable templates should be avoided: the clause must reflect an informed choice that has been explained and accepted by both parties. Collaboration between the notary and the various professionals involved is therefore crucial, given the need to discuss with both parties whether it is appropriate to include such a clause. Since this provision must be agreed upon by both parties, it is important to fully understand how such a mechanism works, and to tailor the advice provided to the nature of the undertaking. Greater caution is warranted when obligations are reciprocal (with the parties alternately acting as creditors and debtors), or when the contractual mechanism may lead to the monetization of an obligation that was originally in kind, which can increase uncertainty and encourage contestation. In general, caution is also warranted when obligations are future, conditional, complex, or subject to interpretation. As for the requirements, the clause setting forth the terms and conditions for accessing out-of-court forced execution must, first and foremost, be included in the body of the notarial act en minute (and not in an appendix or an external clause). Next, the monetary obligation in question must be determined or determinable. The professional must also ensure that the monetary obligation does not fall into an excluded category by law or under the Regulation respecting the forced execution of the payment of a claim resulting from the non-performance of an obligation recorded in a notarial act. The excluded categories include, as applicable: Non-monetary obligations; Certain obligations secured by a hypothec, and those subject to another method of execution; Situations involving consumer protection; Obligations subject to arbitration; Certain obligations involving the State; and Others.  The parties may also contractually exclude certain monetary obligations, provided that such exclusions are clearly stated. How does out-of-court forced execution work? Once the parties have agreed to include an out-of-court forced execution access clause, the decision to use out-of-court forced execution rests with the creditor, and the debtor may not object (section 3, Regulation respecting the forced execution of the payment of a claim resulting from the non-performance of an obligation recorded in a notarial act). The creditor may also choose another method of execution provided for in the act. However, if the notarial act requires mediation to resolve a dispute, the creditor must first comply with that requirement before using out-of-court forced execution. The debtor’s three options within the 30-day period Subsequently, a payment order is prepared by the creditor in accordance with the mandatory requirements set forth in the regulation. The payment order and related documents are then served on the debtor, which formalizes the default and triggers the strict 30-day period granted to the debtor to remedy the default. Before this deadline expires, the debtor has three options: They may pay the claim in full, which will result in the termination of the out-of-court forced execution mechanism. They may enter into a payment agreement, with or without the assistance of the bailiff, thereby suspending the out-of-court forced execution mechanism, with the possibility of reinstatement in the event of default. They may contest the payment order in the appropriate court, which also has the effect of suspending the out-of-court forced execution mechanism. However, the contestation must be served on the creditor and the bailiff, and the supporting documents must be filed within ten days of the contestation. What happens if there is no payment, no agreement, and no contestation? In the absence of full payment, and in the absence of an agreement or a contestation, the bailiff may, upon expiration of the deadline, proceed with the execution of the payment order, which, under these circumstances, acquires the enforceable status of a judgment (section 9, Regulation respecting the forced execution of the payment of a claim resulting from the non-performance of an obligation recorded in a notarial act) and all of the effects thereof. The effects associated with out-of-court forced execution are significant. An uncontested payment order carries a prescription period equivalent to that of a judgment—that is, ten years—and allows for the registration of a legal hypothec and the resulting seizures, while maintaining its rank in the collocation of creditors. The creditor remains, however, an ordinary creditor and is subject to the applicable priority rules with respect to ranking. Advantages and limitations of out-of-court forced execution for the creditor and the debtor For the creditor, out-of-court forced execution can offer greater predictability when the debt is clear, quick access to execution without having to go through the courts, and a significant reduction in collection costs. The mechanism is also advantageous because of the effects associated with an uncontested payment order. However, out-of-court forced execution has certain limitations. It should be noted that this mechanism is strictly limited to monetary obligations. If a dispute arises, it may be suspended or delayed, in which case legal action may become a possible outcome. For the debtor, out-of-court forced execution includes some valuable protections. At the time the act is signed, the debtor receives guidance from the notary to ensure that their consent is freely given and informed. This mechanism can prevent immediate legal proceedings and allows the debtor to contest the payment order within the 30-day period granted to them. Conclusion Out-of-court forced execution is a tool accessible through a notarial act en minute. It is an effective, quick, and cost-efficient process that has the potential to prevent litigation if the required conditions are met. Thus, this new measure is based on the existence of a valid notarial act en minute and determined or determinable monetary obligations that are not excluded. It is also based on strict compliance with the formalities of payment orders. At a time when it is desirable to develop solutions to facilitate better access to justice, this alternative could help alleviate the backlog in the judicial system. It will be interesting to closely monitor the implementation and future use of out-of-court forced execution, keeping in mind that it all begins with a notarial act en minute. Takeaways 1. Out-of-court forced execution does not apply to all claims. It pertains to certain monetary obligations set forth in a notarial act en minute containing a valid access clause. 2. This mechanism allows the creditor to take action without a prior judgment on the merits. After a payment order is served, the debtor has 30 days to pay, reach a settlement, or contest the order. 3. An uncontested payment order may have effects comparable to those of a judgment. In particular, it may become enforceable, trigger a 10-year prescription period, and allow for certain collection measures, subject to the applicable rules.

Executing a judgment in Quebec In Quebec, a bailiff can proceed with the forced execution1 of a judgment rendered by a civil court, such as the Court of Québec or the Superior Court,2 as soon as it becomes final,3 in accordance with article 656 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.). Execution process The execution process begins when the creditor (the party having won the case) sends their instructions to a bailiff, who transcribes them into a notice of execution. The notice is then filed in the Court record and can be consulted free of charge at the court office or on SOQUIJ, for a fee. Prescription and renewal of debt A debtor who has been ordered by judgment to pay a sum of money should know that the debt can be recovered for 10 years, and that if the creditor executes the judgment in those 10 years but the debt goes unpaid, a new 10-year prescription period will start to run and the debt will remain owing. Article 2924 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.) states that “[a] right resulting from a judgment is prescribed by [is extinguished after] 10 years if it is not exercised.” A creditor who has been unable to execute their judgment within the 10-year prescription period has the possibility of interrupting prescription by filing a notice of execution and making sure to serve it on the debtor, in accordance with article 2892 para. 2 C.C.Q. Clearly, a well-informed creditor will be able to indefinitely renew the prescription period to execute their judgment, until the debt has been paid in full. To constitute a valid interruption, the notice of execution must absolutely be filed with the court and be served on the debtor, but the subsequent seizure need not be conclusive. Jurisprudential confirmation Mohawk Council of Kanesatake v. Sylvestre This method of interrupting the extinctive prescription of rights resulting from a judgment has just been confirmed in Mohawk Council of Kanesatake v. Sylvestre, 2025 SCC 30: [62] ... The filing and service of the notice, itself part of the judicial application for seizure, interrupted prescription in 2016 pursuant to art. 2892 C.C.Q. Here is an excerpt of the Honourable Court’s summary: ... [F]iling and serving a notice of execution counts as a judicial application that interrupts the 10-year prescription period... It did not matter that the bailiff later found nothing to be taken and suspended the seizure. It also did not matter that the bailiff did not notify the debtor that the seizure had been suspended.  ... [T]he 10-year period exists to ensure people act on time and to bring stability to debtor-creditor relations, but it should not punish creditors who take the right steps before the deadline. With this decision, the Court gave clarity and certainty to both creditors and debtors about how judgment debts can be enforced and what types of events can interrupt prescription. Additional points Prescription is interrupted when a notice of execution is filed with the Court and served on a debtor by bailiff. The notice of execution may include several seizure options, and the bailiff may attempt more than one, depending on the case. An unsuccessful seizure does not result in the “judicial application” being dismissed. If this is the case, the notice of execution remains valid and has the effect of interrupting prescription, such that a new 10-year period starts to run. There is no requirement for the bailiff to draw up minutes of a nulla bona if no property is seized. The bailiff can prepare minutes to certify that no property was seized, but there is no such requirement under the C.C.P., and the debtor suffers no prejudice if this is not done. The 10-year prescription period is not interrupted if the debtor opposes the execution and the Court allows such opposition. Conclusion This ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada confirms that the filling and service of a notice of execution maintains the validity of a judgment for a renewable period of 10 years. The term “execution” means that a party having succeeded in a judgment may choose one or more ways to compel the other party (the debtor) to pay what is owed to them by seizing immovable property, movable property, bank accounts, wages, and so on. Article 656 para. 2 C.C.P. states that “[e]xecution may be forced if the debtor refuses to comply voluntarily and the judgment has become final.” Article 566 C.C.P., which deals with the recovery of small claims, states that a “judgment creditor may themselves draw up the notice of execution if the only execution measure is seizure of the debtor’s income in the hands of a third person”, and section 13.1 of the Tax Administration Act states, among other things, that the Agence du revenu du Québec may prepare and file a notice of execution and then seize a sum of money or income in the hands of a third person, but that it must hire a bailiff in other cases. The term “final” in this article means that the case is over, that the judgment can no longer be appealed and that the creditor can force a debtor to comply with the judgment’s orders.